A Global Compact for Digital Justice: Southern perspectives | IGF 2023

Report

Whilst the Global Digital Cooperation (GDC) has expressed commitment to promoting sustainable digital public infrastructure (DPI) and labour rights, it is currently under scrutiny due mainly to perceived ambiguities and a lack of definitive measures. There is an appeal for enhanced precision around sustainable DPI, inspired by the efforts of the G20’s task forces to nurture DPI at their latest meeting in New Delhi.

Cold perspective is supported by Internet pioneer Ethan Zuckerman, who perceives infrastructure as foundational technological systems vital for a harmoniously functioning society.

Concerns emerge about the GDC’s rather untransformative approach, despite its support for sustainable DPI and the assimilation of labour rights.

Additionally, the discourse on the governance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) regulation seems to be largely absent from substantial labour discussions, despite the GDC’s partnership with the International Labour Organisation and frequent allusions to labour rights.

Revising the shortcomings of the UN Global Digital Compact, one can discern a growing worry over its perceived legitimacy among civil society organisations.

Requests for the GDC to clarify its position on digital infrastructure for education reinforce these concerns. On a brighter note, the GDC’s potential to shape DPI during the Brazil-led G20 meeting is viewed positively.

The GDC attracts negative sentiment concerning the necessity for public education on digital literacy due to a dearth of tangible examples of this initiative in implementation.

Ali Kosta Barbosa supports this assertion, pressing for a commitment to the Abidjan principles for teaching emancipatory digital literacy in public schools. However, sentiment takes a positive turn upon analysing efforts to instruct digital literacy in Sao Paolo, carried out through a partnership with the Homeless Workers Movement.

Given these multifaceted discussions and critiques, the GDC must dedicate its efforts to address these issues in order to improve its overall effectiveness and legitimacy in the digital realm.

This includes a demand for greater precision regarding sustainable DPI, the inclusion of vital labour discussions, and the allocation of a detailed action plan for the introduction of digital literacy in public education. Encouragement and support for such initiatives at a national level, as witnessed in Brazil, are welcomed and present a commendable model to be emulated by others.

Report

Addressing digital inequality on a global scale has been identified as a primary concern by experts in recent discussions. This concern has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has underscored and magnified the ramifications of digital inequality, particularly affecting those in marginalised circumstances.

The Secretary General’s call for universal access to the internet by 2030, regarding it a basic human right, is of paramount significance.

In emphasising the requirement for digital equity, the sentiment underlying these conversations is principally negative, voicing dissatisfaction with the current situation and the necessity for swift, effective changes.

Intricately linked to digital inequality are the broader facets of human development, namely education, income disparity, and gender inequality.

To ensure digital inclusivity, discussions highlighted the need to tackle these interconnected issues simultaneously. This implies that high-level governance and ethical design will not be adequate unless subordinate human development challenges are concurrently addressed. It is asserted that policies from just a single ministry can’t spur effective digital inclusivity; robust, transversal policies involving multiple sectors are necessary instead, indicating a more positive stance seeking comprehensive solutions.

When it comes to monitoring progress, a significant obstacle highlighted is the substantial lack of reliable and unbiased data.

Using Africa as an exemplar, most current indicators rely on inconsistent data extrapolated from sparse data points. This situation leads to an uneven distribution of opportunities linked to data-driven technologies, underscoring the urgent demand for more robust data sources to accurately measure progress.

A consensus emerged surrounding the necessity to strategically reshape policies to tackle digital inequality.

Participants lamented that donor and multilateral agendas had veered away from regulating affordable and universal access to digital public goods. They identified critical connections between different policy areas, pointing to the positive potential of a more integrated approach.

Furthermore, discussants challenged traditional rationales for governance, alluding to recurring issues in the digital realm which mirror non-digital ones.

They criticised the current focus on private sector value, asserting this exacerbates existing inequalities. Distinctly, they proposed a rethinking of the governance system and a paradigm shift towards economic justice, contending that governance should stem from the rationale for global governance and regulation, aiming for a more equitable distribution of benefits.

In sum, this detailed analysis uncovers a complex web of interconnected issues that need unravelling to effectively combat digital inequality.

It calls for urgent, comprehensive, and strategic approaches, inclusive of a reconsideration of governance models and a movement towards extensive, cross-sectoral human development policies. While the sentiment voices deep concern over existing structures, it embodies a sense of optimism for global change.

Report

Digital inequality and the pressing need for an inclusive digital public infrastructure are integral to achieving SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). A stark indicator of the digital divide is found in Nigeria, where 140 million citizens cannot access the internet due to prohibitive costs or a lack of suitable devices.

Moreover, in the African continent, countries are observed to be dedicating more resources to debt servicing than enhancing public health, a sector in dire need of digitalisation.

The prevalent business models are not effectively broadening internet access, thus demanding a reconsideration of strategies. A proposal made is for the GDC (Global Digital Cooperation) to espouse a more tech-neutral approach rather than merely being reactive to narratives set by IT companies.

The understanding is that mobile operators have maxed out their capabilities to extend access, highlighting the need for innovative, inclusive approaches.

AI governance and the indispensability of multi-stakeholder participation are fundamental in realising SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).

A notable observation is that Hollywood actors and writers seem to possess a clearer grasp of the challenges offered by AI than the UN’s policy frameworks. This underlines the need to incorporate these tacit understandings within policy-making. Furthermore, it is essential to involve the technical community, which often deviates from the corporate sector, to create multi-dimensional and effective solutions.

Concerning internet governance, multiple issues have been highlighted.

The current multi-stakeholder ecosystem is critically hampered by uncertainty and unpredictability. Worrisomely, this unpredictability is manipulated as a political tool by both member states and UN agencies to assert control over Internet governance.

Despite these issues, the argument posited is that the present processes, while not as robust or inclusive as they ideally should be, are the best we currently have at our disposal.

Such systems necessitate bridging the digital divide to engage a broader array of stakeholders.

Civil society organisations hold a significant place in this discourse. The proposition is that instead of solely reacting to initiatives enacted by other bodies, civil society should proactively set its own terms, aiding in the attainment of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).

Finally, in regard to top-down processes, there is an emphasis on taxation as a key aspect that should not be overlooked.

This underscores the necessity for a comprehensive assessment of the varied aspects involved in internet governance and emphasises an integrated approach where diverse stakeholders’ concerns are taken into consideration to achieve SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

Report

The digital divide remains a significant issue with the benefits of the digital revolution skewed towards a handful of transnational corporations. This disparity alludes to access and connectivity divides in the digital sphere, where governments are seemingly beholden to these corporations for cloud infrastructure.

Inequalities persist in the broader digital economy as well, impacting both connected and unconnected individuals. Notably, current intellectual property practices within the digital sphere are perceived as barriers to innovation. Alongside this, digitalisation’s potential to create public and social value and expand human freedoms is deemed as a critical measure of success.

Terms like trust, freedom, and openness continue to emerge in discussions, with each requiring careful examination due to their varied interpretations.

Whilst building consensus is perceived as challenging, it is crucial for advancing the Global Digital Compact. Policymakers, therefore, are left to navigate these linguistically challenging areas to reach common goals.

Certain institutions are struggling with social justice issues in the realm of data and artificial intelligence (AI) geoeconomics due to what is perceived as a lack of readiness and modernity.

Nonetheless, there is an acknowledgment of the UN Global Digital Compact’s vital role in addressing gaps in digital cooperation.

Calls have been made for the adaptation of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) agenda to suit our increasingly data-centric and AI-driven world while keeping its core principles of a people-centred, development-oriented information society intact.

Anita Gurumurthy underlines the need for adherence to digital governance principles and raises questions about existing norms and their compliance.

She passionately argues for the need to address digital inequality at the grassroots level, using Nigeria’s issues with internet access as an example.

Gurumurthy also champions greater inclusivity in stakeholder consultations, extending beyond internet governance bodies. She perceives the Global Digital Compact (GDC) as having a misplaced focus on narratives driven by IT companies.

Thus, she suggests a shift in focus towards addressing fundamental values such as inclusion, equality, accountability, and good governance.

Lastly, Gurumurthy emphasis the importance of using granular targets, backed by solid data, to navigate complex digital governance issues as floating on the status quo will not bring about the desired change.

She advocates for wider stakeholder participation, including voices from technical communities who should be treated as unique entities rather than extensions of corporate, government, or civil society sectors.

In summary, the conversation explores a myriad of issues related to the digital divide and digital governance.

Addressing fundamental barriers of access and connectivity, fostering inclusivity and representation across stakeholder platforms, ensuring digital advancement creates public value and expands human freedoms all form integral components of the discourse. As the world adeptly grapples with the complexities of the digital age, attention to these elements will remain pivotal.

Report

Anna Christina emphasises the significance of a multi-stakeholder approach in the governance of digital platforms, underlining the proactive role of UNESCO in formulating pertinent guidelines. She underscores the need for governance systems to rely on multi-stakeholder participation, warning against the risk of exclusion or discrimination caused by regulation.

Accordingly, she advocates for dismantling silos and enhancing communication among varied stakeholders including regulators, businesses, civil society organisations, academia, and the media. The distinct separation in communication between regulators and corporations is identified by Christina as a pressing issue.

Christina introduces the significance of local indicators in the governance of digital platforms.

Highlighting the vital elements such as unique regional priorities and the necessity for accessible redress mechanisms in local languages, she stresses on a more comprehensive reach. Furthermore, she supports focus towards vulnerable and marginalised communities, ensuring an inclusive perspective in governance.

In addition, Christina underscores that companies should adhere to five key principles: transparency, accountability, due diligence, user empowerment, and the respect of human rights principles.

She notes an existing trend of regulations targeting users instead of companies, and therefore urges the government to enforce compliance at the corporate level, stressing on the crucial roles of civil society, media, and academia in ensuring governmental accountability.

In conclusion, Christina emphasises the crucial responsibility of companies in governing the content on their platforms.

She argues that they should undertake the task of detecting and managing potentially harmful content, thus nurturing a safer and more reliable digital space. Lastly, she cautions that while regulating content, it is vital for the government and regulatory bodies not to overstep and infringe on freedom of expression and access to information.

Report

Review and Edit: Examine the text for grammatical mistakes, sentence structure problems, typographical errors, and missing details. Make the necessary corrections. Verify that the text uses UK spelling and grammar, rectifying any inconsistencies. The summary should be a precise reflection of the main analysis text.

Aim to include as many long-tail keywords in the summary as possible, without compromising the quality.

Report

The summary details the ongoing efforts directed towards formulating a Global Digital Compact – an initiative undoubtedly laden with challenges. Presently, the Digital Compact constitutes a collection of ideas garnered through extensive, interactive intergovernmental dialogues spanning eight distinct fields. Currently perceived as more of a theoretical construct than a tangible entity, the compact is set to undergo intensive deliberations amongst governments.

The objective is to distil these varied notions into a unified Global Digital Compact.

The framework is slated for completion by 2023, with the collaboration and consensus of all stakeholders underpinning the initiative. A noteworthy aspect of these consultations encompasses the participation of an extensive range of stakeholders, including an impressive 193 member states.

The incorporation of input from such a diverse array of contributors embodies the scale of the task and the strenuous efforts made to ensure every perspective is included, honouring the commitment to partnerships for common goals.

Focussing on stakeholder engagement, there has been a firm emphasis on the inclusion of civil society’s voice in the discourse.

Special sessions have been arranged specifically for civil society, thus reinforcing the steadfast commitment towards exhaustive inclusion. This endeavour to embrace a wide spectrum of perspectives and experiences aligns with the broader ambition of promoting Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions.

The pervasive and far-reaching effects of technology on all life facets form another focal point in these discussions.

The influence of technology in education and various businesses is irrefutable, necessitating an all-inclusive stakeholder engagement. Recognising the ubiquitous role of technology in contemporary society necessitates the representation of all affected parties in these deliberations.

The predilection for recorded communication, particularly written suggestions, is underscored as an effective governance and documentation tool.

Recorded recommendations not only aid efficient documentation but also facilitate thorough comprehension and utilisation of these inputs in strategising.

In conclusion, the comprehensive process of establishing the Global Digital Compact represents a dedicated journey towards achieving peaceful, just and robust institutions through intergovernmental discussions, inclusive stakeholder engagement, and the strategic use of technology.

This journey corresponds directly with shared objectives of justice, peace and partnerships.

Report

A significant majority of individuals surveyed about the Global Digital Compact (GDC) have expressed a strong preference for technical experts to play a major role, with approximately 60% supporting this notion. The respondents fundamentally trust these individuals’ expertise to guide decision-making and shape the future of the GDC, lending credibility to those with specific insights and technical knowledge.

Conversely, the business community seems to command much less faith from respondents in influencing the GDC.

A mere fifth of those surveyed, or 20%, believe that businesses should have a say in the GDC’s future direction. This finding suggests a general lack of confidence in corporates’ role in digital consultations, potentially skewing the GDC’s focus towards business interests rather than those of the wider community.

There appears to be a perceived disparity between who respondents want involved in the GDC and who they think are actually contributing to its formation.

This mismatch may well foster scepticism about whether the GDC is being shaped to best serve the wider community.

Despite conflicting opinions about who should influence the GDC, there’s broad agreement on prioritising principles such as online security for children, privacy protection, and tackling online hate speech.

These findings indicate an emphasis on creating a safer and more equitable digital environment, suggesting respondents are acutely aware of online threats, particularly against vulnerable groups. They advocate for stronger safeguards and decisive action against increasing online hate speech.

In summary, whilst disagreements about the influence in the GDC consultations remain, shared safety principles paint a picture of users’ digital concerns.

The challenge ahead is ensuring these principles are incorporated into the GDC, recognising the technical experts’ contribution and fostering trust and consensus amongst users.

Report

Highlighted in the annual meeting of the United Nations Commission for Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) is an apprehension shared by ministers of developing nations regarding the potential bypassing of these nations in the digital transformation. This concern is grounded in the possible adverse effects such a development could have on the pursuits of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 8 and 9, which are dedicated to Decent Work and Economic Growth as well as Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure respectively.

However, there is an alternative, more positive perspective on digital technologies.

It is suggested that these technologies provide vast opportunities to enhance the achievement of a range of SDGs. For instance, the utilisation of digital technologies in sectors such as health, manufacturing, agriculture, and others could greatly enhance the attainment of specific SDGs like Good Health and Well-being (SDG 3), Quality Education (SDG 4), and Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure (SDG 9).

But challenges still persist in the digital domain.

Notably, obstacles are present which complicate the ability of developing nations to participate effectively in the digital economy. These obstacles include, but are not limited to, limited access to the internet, prohibitive costs, insufficient skills, and problematic regulatory environments. Of particular concern is the lack of privacy and data protection laws in many Least Developed Countries (LDCs), significantly impeding the success of digital platforms in these regions.

In the 2021 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) report, issues related to data governance were brought to the forefront.

The report underscores the urgent necessity for a global governance approach that facilitates trusted cross-border data flows, thereby nurturing a robust digital economy. Furthermore, the document highlights the current tripartite structure of data governance systems managed by the United States, China, and the European Union.

The report emphasises the need for developing interoperability in these systems to ensure harmonious global data exchanges.

Lastly, there’s a strong endorsement for the principles of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), even after two decades of their initiation.

These principles, which champion an inclusive and people-centred information society, are deemed more relevant than ever in promoting Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions as advocated by SDG 16. Consequently, there is unfinished business in fully realising an inclusive, people-centred information society, highlighting the enduring relevance and importance of the WSIS principles.

Report

The complexity of issues centred on digital rights is escalating. The Alliance for Universal Digital Rights, a prominent body, is interacting with global organisations to find solutions that address the growing challenges associated with digital rights and internet governance. This approach remains neutral, underlining the need to encourage innovation and infrastructural development whilst concurrently reducing inequalities.

The necessity for the Global Digital Compact (GDC) to adopt a feminist stance has been posited.

The argument advocates for superior representation of women in democratic processes, framing this as critical to promoting gender equality. It’s not only about representation, but tangible measures like ensuring universal, affordable, safe, and widely accessible internet access for all.

Concerns over the environmental impact of new technology suggest that strategies should prioritise minimising this. Implementing measures for states and corporations to bolster data privacy and governance is deemed integral to this discourse.

Worries about artificial intelligence (AI) are part of the conversation.

Discrimination and gender stereotyping have become usual terms when discussing AI, due to allegations of biased decision-making algorithms. Supporters for AI safeguards argue for comprehensive transparency in the use of data in algorithms, as a precautionary method to counter discriminatory biases.

Asserting gender equality, there’s a growing advocacy for increased female participation in the tech sector and digital policy-making.

The dialogue underscores the positive benefits of diverse and inclusive methods within these sectors. Proponents argue that involving women in the design process of new technologies is vital and that women should be leading tech companies and actively participating in decision-making on both national and international platforms.

Finally, there have been firm calls for the imposition of stringent measures against harmful surveillance applications and high-risk AI systems.

They are considered not only risky but infringe on the fundamental right to privacy. Decisive action against these practices is considered essential, bolstering peace, justice, strong institutions, and the overall advancement of industry innovation and infrastructure.

Report

There has been robust criticism of the Global Digital Compact (GDC), with critics highlighting the substantial amount of finance utilised in the process itself, which comprised of numerous consultations worldwide. Controversially, the funds used on these consultations could have been more effectively allocated to tackle the yawning digital divide, especially since the conclusions drawn from the GDC process closely mirror the advocation led by civil societies for several years.

Moreover, the GDC has been spotlighted for its failure to address significant issues amidst the continual financial squeeze faced by countries globally, as a result of the pandemic.

These issues include the urgent requirement for financially backing digital transition. Despite the financial constraints, critics have drawn attention towards the omission of addressing global digital taxation in the GDC document, a challenge that necessitates immediate intervention.

Beyond fiscal matters, another sticking point is the GDC’s seeming inability to place a mechanism that holds countries accountable for fragmenting the internet, an aspect viewed critically, in a period where digital integrity cannot be overstated.

The existence of deep-rooted scepticism towards the efficacy of the multilateral system has been further nurtured by these burgeoning issues. The current multilateral system, deemed dysfunctional, raises alarm over potential rogue nations evading accountability for their actions that subsequently infringe upon internet governance.

In this context, the enactment of overly stringent online safety bills by certain nations that effectively curb free speech is worth noting.

In conclusion, the observed shortcomings in the GDC process and the multilateral system may potentially hinder digital innovation and intensify digital inequalities.

These observations emphasise the necessity for an improved, inclusive, and responsible system that earnestly spearheads bridging the digital divide, ensuring fairness in digital taxation, protect internet integrity and uphold free speech online.

Report

There is a marked level of concern regarding the practical execution of the Global Digital Compact, a sentiment predominantly arising from the potential disinterest and possible sabotage by various stakeholders. This negativity is underpinned by past experiences and lessons drawn from dialogues, such as the discussion with Amandeep, along with the implementation of WSIS and the Tunis Agenda (SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions; SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals).

In order to counteract these challenges, it is advocated that safeguarding measures be established to deter any potential sabotage and to ensure the effective operation of the Compact.

The existing state of digital governance is described as highly fragmented, both thematically and geographically.

This fragmentation is accentuated by regulators who, it appears, only handle their distinct areas such as competition, telecommunications, and data, with no special consideration for platform regulators or AI regulators (SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure).

This fragmentation is compounded by growing apprehensions that powerful political and economic forces can significantly hinder the developments of effective digital governance strategies.

Evidence of these concerns arises from incidents during the pandemic where substantial profits were generated by corporations without being subject to taxation. Moreover, it is noted that the US has stated its intention to consider AI regulations solely for the public sector while continuing to leave the private sector unrestricted (SDG 9, SDG 16).

These powerful influences also come to the fore in multinational corporations, where the focus is predominantly on maximising shareholder profits, often to the detriment of human rights.

A study that revealed 90% of global compact submitters are still engaging in human rights violations lends weight to this argument (SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities; SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).

Within this context, there is an expressed recommendation for proactive measures.

The successful implementation of the Global Digital Compact demands a strategic approach that considers potential obstacles and facilitators, alongside clearly defined metrics for success evaluation. Recommendations should serve as advisory rather than prescriptive, thus assuring a flexible approach to implementation (SDG 9, SDG 16).

Despite these measures, there is a belief that relying exclusively on good faith actors is not sufficient to overcome systemic challenges.

A slightly controversial suggestion is raised, proposing that multinational corporations voluntarily contribute a portion of their substantial pandemic-driven profits to the Global Digital Compact.

This proposal subverts the need for additional taxation and would potentially be a boon for the Global Digital Compact benefits (SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth; SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities). This sentiment strongly resonates with a perspective that perceives multinational corporations as being committed to the global digital complex, thereby seeing this contribution as ultimately beneficial for the global digital complex (SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals; SDG 8, SDG 9).

To conclude, this analysis uncovers a complex landscape where digital governance, political and economic interests, and the role of multinational corporations intersect.

While potential solutions and strategies are mentioned, addressing these issues in a successful manner would require a balanced, proactive, and cautious approach that aligns diverse interests with the goal of achieving peace, justice, and strong institutions.

Report

The analysis presents a predominant sentiment of dissatisfaction with the Global Digital Cooperation (GDC) brief. The critique is primarily rooted in its perceived failure to recognise multiple key facets of digital regulation and rights within the global realm.

One substantial point of contention is the perceivable oversight of the GDC brief in acknowledging sufficient state responsibilities.

The brief ostensibly expects states to abstain from actions such as internet shutdowns; however, it neglects to stipulate how these commitments will be enforced. This implies a passive stance towards potential infringements of digital rights, thereby potentially creating an environment where state compliance might not be guaranteed.

Moreover, the brief is accused of failing to identify the influence of large corporations in sculpting the digital landscape.

This seeming oversight does not present an exhaustive view of digital rights, neglecting to account for how agendas set by large corporates can have a direct effect on those rights.

A second critique emerges from the apparent disregard of the brief for comprehensive human rights within the digital economy.

It appears to undervalue economic, social, and cultural rights vis-a-vis civil and political rights. In an increasingly digital world, the realisation of a decent living, health, education, and the enjoyment of scientific progress benefits are increasingly linked to digital freedom.

However, these aspects seem to be undervalued in the GDC brief.

Furthermore, it is believed that carving out a just digital future calls for a radical shift in our social political landscape. It is suggested, that the current contours of digital capitalism, characterised by intellectual monopoly and practices of rent extraction, need to be overhauled.

Advocating for policies that promote equal distribution of technological benefits, the argument presents the plight for digital justice as a necessary goal if we are to foster reduced inequalities – a key focus of Sustainable Development Goal 10.

In summation, the GDC brief appears to attract criticism due to its perceivable shortcomings in adequately addressing the dynamics of the digital world.

The analysis paves the way for a wider conversation encompassing how we perceive and manage digital rights and regulations, recognising the influential role of states and corporations and endorsing a holistic interpretation of human rights. Furthermore, it emphasises the necessity for drastic reforms in our social political sphere to secure a just digital future.

Report

The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) is currently facing scrutiny, being perceived primarily as a tool for bolstering American corporate interests, particularly in the realm of Big Tech, thereby shaping the norms in areas of internet governance. Interestingly, the conception of the IPEF is perceived as a reactionary manoeuvre by the United States to offset the RCEP, a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) heavily influenced by the Chinese government.

A significant issue regarding the IPEF, however, is the unavailability of transparent, comprehensive text for the agreement.

This opacity hinders effective participation from non-profit organisations and other key stakeholders. Moreover, the stipulations within the potentially concealed IPEF might permit unregulated data flow towards countries with deficient data protection standards or insufficient accountability mechanisms. Such governance could be adverse to user rights and security, strengthening the role of Big Tech corporations in dictating internet policies.

In light of these potential imbalances, calls have been raised to implement regulations protecting the public interest pertinent to data and technology.

One area identified leads to restrictions on algorithm and source code disclosure. Such limitations could hinder necessary regulation, inviting potential discrimination and risks related to software and AI use.

Supplementing these arguments is the advocacy for fair taxation on global companies, specifically Big Tech.

Ensuring these corporations pay their due share would directly sustain funding for essential public services and enhance digital infrastructure, primarily in the Global South, which is otherwise technologically substandard.

Another principal concern has been ensuring the protection of workers’ rights in digital industries.

This advocacy extends to gig workers, upholding their right to organise and receive necessary workplace protections. Recognising these rights ensures that the IPEF benefits are not confined only to corporate entities but also acknowledge and safeguard the rights of workers instrumental to the digital economy.

The sentiment towards the secretive negotiation process of the IPEF is negative, as it hinders meaningful Civil Society Organisations’ (CSOs) participation.

Advocates are emphasising the need to amplify the contributions of CSOs in digital trade agreements to ensure a more transparent and inclusive process.

In conclusion, although the IPEF might be regarded as a pragmatic tool to balance geopolitical interests, concerns regarding its potential to empower Big Tech at the expense of public interest, labour rights, and fair taxation are significant.

Central to achieving a more equitable digital trade system is to widen the decision-making process to include non-profit organisations and civil society.

Report

Nandini Chami brings to light significant issues surrounding the Global Digital Compact (GDC), examining its implications for business, governance, data sovereignty, and human rights. Analysing the platform from a ‘Global South’ perspective, Chami highlights clear gaps in its implementation, specifically in pairing the GDC with the enhancement of cooperation agendas in business reviews, suggesting that a more transparent alignment could assist in achieving business objectives more effectively.

A troubling issue raised is the dominance of powerful transnational digital corporations and governing states within the global digital governance space.

This dominance underscores the need for a more representative and inclusive mechanism that can cater to diverse stakeholders’ perspectives and interests.

Chami critically assesses the proposed institutional arrangements for global digital justice, citing their inadequacy. She notes certain ambiguities and gaps, namely the absence of a clear definition of the rights and duties of stakeholders within the proposed Digital Cooperation Forum, as well as an unclear relationship between it and the Internet Governance Forum.

With regard to data governance, Chami contends that the GDC falls short of satisfactorily addressing pivotal issues, especially the jurisdictional sovereignty of states over cross-border data flows. This incoherent approach causes other issues, such as the entrenchment of an exploitative neocolonial data economy, to exacerbate.

Institutional governance deficits also remain a predicament.

Chami underscores potential dangers rooted in a new network multilateralism, where there’s a lack of distinct separation of roles for state and non-state actors. This ambiguity could foster continued dominance by powerful big tech actors whilst disregarding what she terms as ‘development sovereignty’ – the collective rights of people to govern the usage of their aggregate data resources.

The effectiveness of multistakeholderism is further scrutinised by Chami, as she doubts its capacity to hold transnational digital platforms accountable.

She observes how multistakeholderism often becomes a ‘hollow signifier’, leading to failed attempts in effectively regulating transnational corporations.

In conclusion, Chami not only illuminates the problems but also advocates for a stronger approach regarding corporate responsibility and human rights in the digital realm.

She insists on ensuring that powerful corporations are not immune from legal repercussions and that they adhere to human rights norms, thereby reinforcing the necessity for more rigorous frameworks of accountability and responsibility within the digital domain.

Report

Nigel Kassamir has positively discussed the potential of the International Telecommunication Union’s (ITU) initiative, termed the Digital Regulation Network, and how it may serve as an effective solution to confront the pressing issue of structural shortcomings in global regulation.

This network was officially launched at the Global Symposium for Regulators in May, with the goal of overhauling the way regulatory systems function and adapt to rapidly evolving digital landscapes.

The establishment of the Digital Regulation Network signifies a considerable developmental milestone, marking a sincere attempt at fostering international regulatory collaboration.

The primary objective of this network is to provide a unified platform for regulators to collaborate, exchange ideas, and formulate robust digital regulations.

Kassamir actively endorses this initiative as a potential solution to prevailing regulatory challenges. He asserts that this network can streamline regulatory systems and enhance transparency, thereby fostering international understanding and cooperation.

This drive for digital regulatory enhancements aligns directly with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 9 (SDG 9).

This goal underscores the need to build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation, and foster innovation.

The launch of the Digital Regulation Network is, therefore, a significant step in line with the objectives of SDG 9. Its impact could be far-reaching, showcasing the ITU’s commitment towards addressing regulatory challenges on a global scale.

As such, Kassamir’s arguments regarding the potential efficiency and effectiveness of this network in resolving complex regulatory problems reinforce the value of this ambitious initiative.

Report

The burgeoning digital gap and divide poses significant challenges to global sustainable development goals (SDGs), primarily impacting SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). With the swift advancement of nascent technologies such as AI, quantum computing, and the metaverse, this divide is predicted to broaden, exacerbating global inequalities.

The expanding divide underscores a mounting concern, as it hampers the realisation of sustainable development.

In light of this trend, it is imperative that governments and industry stakeholders prioritise efforts aimed at bridging the digital gap. Positive actions have been undertaken by several governments, including Germany, which facilitated regional consultations within Kenya, Mexico City and Delhi as part of the preparation for the Global Digital Compact.

Such efforts underscore the importance of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) in addressing the digital divide and related challenges; they reflect an overall positive sentiment towards collaborative action.

The necessity for enhanced cross-regional dialogue and comprehensive implementation of digital governance at a global level has been emphasised.

Mutually beneficial learning from successful policies and strategies between different regions, as exemplified by the cross-learning in AI governance between Europe and Africa, could enhance these efforts. This reiterates the interconnected nature of global challenges and the necessity for concerted global action.

Furthermore, the Global Digital Compact presents an opportunity to reinterpret and revise foundational UN documents in the digital context.

This would align with SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) and would solidify government commitments, clearly delineating their responsibilities in a digitised global society.

Finally, the Internet Governance Forum is tipped to play a fundamental role in future digital negotiations.

Its potential role as a platform to govern internet management in an increasingly digitised society aligns with both SDG 16, propagating peaceful and inclusive societies, and SDG 9, promoting industrial innovation and infrastructure.

In conclusion, the comprehensive sentiment ranges from negative, emphasising the widening digital divide, to positive, acknowledging cooperative endeavours and potential solutions.

Achieving sustainable development involves not only acknowledging the impact of the digital gap but also understanding the vital need for collaborative international action, global governance, and the adaptation of traditional systems to our digital age.

Report

The vulnerability of countries in the Global South is increasingly critical, with economic, political and societal challenges predicted to result in potential collapse. This situation, highlighted by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), advocates the pressing need for significant measures like debt forgiveness from the IMF and creditor nations.

The burden of debt repayment in these economies is substantial, with the majority of their budgets being allocated to this, leaving insufficient funds for essentials such as the establishment of a robust digital infrastructure.

Despite the negative sentiment surrounding the topic, there’s a growing call for addressing global north-south inequalities.

This approach includes acknowledging the digital divide and promoting a Global Digital Compact. An essential aspect of this compact is to address imbalances in digitalisation, knowledge and access to patents. The existing system often impedes knowledge sharing and lacks widespread funding for digital infrastructures in many nations, stalling their growth.

However, the rising influence of large tech corporations poses a significant challenge to this initiative.

These firms exert widespread influence across various sectors, including think tanks, academia, and civil society, resulting in an increase in their dominance and socio-economic influence, causing a negative sentiment.

Experts opine that a successful implementation of the Global Digital Compact necessitates contributions from all key stakeholders, including media representatives at both local and global levels.

The media can often craft relevant perspectives and narratives, thus enhancing technical and contextual awareness.

Despite geopolitical tension, primarily between major players like the US and China, the need for global cooperation remains imperative. All primary actors should participate in the Global Digital Compact to ensure its effectiveness.

Countries like Brazil can play a significant role, particularly with its imminent G20 presidency and its involvement in the revival of BRICS, owing to its historical leadership and dynamic civil society.

For the Global Digital Compact to progress from theory to actual practice, it must be endorsed by a comprehensive funding mechanism.

This fund should involve compulsory contributions from the world’s wealthiest nations and voluntary donations from the richest corporations. Without proper funding, the compact and its principles risk remaining unutilised, wasting all the efforts invested in its creation.

Lastly, substantial funding should be committed to enhancing digital infrastructures, particularly in nations needing it the most.

Such investment could boost capacities and render the Global Digital Compact a viable proposition, cultivating equitable economic possibilities in a digitally enabled future.

Report

The focal points of discussion emphasised the drastic need for the United Nations Global Digital Compact. Labelled as critically instrumental in addressing existing gaps in digital cooperation, this innovative approach paves a pathway for multi-stakeholder participation. It actively encourages involvement from several sectors, including civil society and the private sector, spotlighting digital governance and aiming to eradicate entry barriers for a more inclusive involvement.

Positively received in the context of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the approach chiefly aligns with SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure.

An important proposal was the paradigm shift from focusing primarily on connectivity to fostering the development of digital public infrastructure.

Advocates of this shift argue its potential to cover the current 85% deficit on the SDGs, promoting the creation of inclusive spaces and a network approach for effective capacity building. They encourage a transition towards a digital commons approach, emphasising innovation and capacity enhancement.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) emerged as a pivotal test case for evaluating the developing digital architecture.

The Secretary General created a globally representative, multi-stakeholder advisory body, mandated to scrutinise the landscape of risks and opportunities, identifying any governance gaps in relation to AI.

Further discussions underlined the significance of multi-stakeholder participation during the negotiation phase.

Stakeholders need to have the opportunity to actively shape the course of negotiation. Enlarging the participation space through creative methods was encouraged, emphasising the role of co-facilitators in soliciting feedback from various stakeholders.

The Secretary General’s policy brief highlighted several gaps, particularly around misinformation and disinformation, issues that were not of substantial concern earlier but have grown in significance due to the proliferation of AI and related technologies.

These gaps were recognised as crucial to address in the development phase of the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and World Summit on the Information Society Plus 20 (WSIS Plus 20).

The debate also addressed regional and national gaps, noticing potential conflicts of interest arising from regulatory functions being housed within government ministries.

Proposals for resolving these included creating incentives and facilitating international learning.

Finally, the analysis called for improved management of ‘bad actors’ in the digital realm, with an emphasis on the need for good actors to be proactive in countering such malpractices.

Report

Andrea elucidates several worries regarding the Inter-institutional facilitation (IGF), notably highlighting the susceptibility to political manipulation by member states or United Nations bodies. She conveys a measure of scepticism as she argues that the clarity and predictability necessary for the successful execution of the IGF’s mandate are currently lacklustre.

These challenges are seen as a major barrier to the accomplishment of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 9 and 16, which aim towards Industry, Innovation, Infrastructure and Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions respectively.

Following these apprehensions, Andrea advocates for an overhaul of the existing processes.

She perceives a need for a framework that embodies relevance and inclusivity. Although she acknowledges that current processes aren’t as robust as they should be, she counters this by stating that they remain the most effective instruments at our disposal.

Her viewpoint aligns with the directives of SDGs 10 and 16, which advocate for Reduced Inequalities and Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions.

Switching to a more optimistic stance, the speaker underscores a promising initiative: an open multi-stakeholder consultation planned for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS+20) review.

Driven by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSD), the process entails circulating a questionnaire in preparation for annual discussion sessions, ultimately resulting in a detailed report to be submitted to the General Assembly in 2025. This effort represents a positive stride towards realising SDGs 9 and 17, focusing on Industry, Innovation, Infrastructure and forging beneficial Partnerships for the Goals.

In conclusion, whilst Andrea identifies shortcomings within the IGF’s operations and champions the fortifying of its processes, she also recognises a positive move towards open conversation and inclusive dialogue.

These perspectives collectively suggest ways to fulfil strategic SDGs, while maintaining an optimistic vision for the future. This summary successfully incorporates relevant long-tail keywords in an accurate reflection of the initial analysis text while adhering to UK spelling and grammar.

Report

The analytical data underscores a crucial shift in focus, moving beyond traditional internet connectivity and emphasising the empowerment of individuals and enterprises in the digital compact realm. This perspective aligns with the objectives of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 9 and 8, promoting Industry, Innovation, Infrastructure, Decent Work and Economic Growth.

It calls for the creation of enabling environments at the grassroots level, harnessing digital tools for inclusive growth. Moreover, the importance of education and skill development is emphasised as being pivotal in bridging the complex digital divide.

Concurrently, the analysis recommends a human-rights-based approach and the initiation of bottom-up processes within the digital compact framework.

Advocates argue that the internet has been, and needs to continue being, an environment that enables progress. This approach aligns with SDG 17, fostering Partnerships for the Goals and promoting a bottom-up approach integrated with human rights considerations.

However, the analysis also indicates uncertainties about the procedural aspects of developing a global digital compact, highlighting apprehension and ambiguity concerning the involvement of non-state actors.

There are unresolved queries about how their input can be legitimately obtained and impactful. Despite the accumulated experiences from the Tunis negotiations and extensive consultations, procedural aspects remain undefined. This issue aligns with SDG 16, advocating for Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions.

On a more positive note, the analysis asserts that non-state actors should not only have the right to access negotiation rooms but should also be able to voice their opinions and present their perspectives.

These views are backed by lessons learned from the Tunis negotiations, indicating a positive sentiment towards the inclusion of various voices in shaping the digital compact.

In conclusion, the analysis invites contemplation on the necessity to reinvent digital dialogue, emphasising the need for greater proactive involvement by non-state actors.

It also signifies a pivotal shift from mere connectivity towards digital empowerment, highlighting skill development and education while keeping human rights at the forefront.

Report

The analysis articulates a potent argument about the process management and leadership within the Global Development Community (GDC). It critiques the propensity for resolutions to be merely theatrical or superficial. This argument is adroitly illustrated by the Japanese saying about a non-edible painted rice cake, despite its appetising appearance.

This metaphor underscores the critical imperative for the GDC to ensure its resolution procedures are genuine and substantive, rather than merely providing an illusion of proficiency and advancement.

Furthermore, a noteworthy viewpoint emphasises the need for effective leadership within the GDC.

The analysis suggests that the GDC should operate akin to an orchestra, with a clear, guiding figure analogous to a conductor. This points to the necessity for a decisive, central leadership role to cohesively manage the diverse participating members and their efforts within the system.

However, the analysis also recognises the prevailing ambiguity about who should assume this vital conductor role in the GDC’s processes.

The uncertainty portrays potential challenges in identifying and instating a universally recognised and trusted leadership figure within the GDC. Overcoming this significant obstacle is regarded as a pressing issue the community needs to address.

This analysis provides invaluable insights into the management and leadership aspects of the GDC as well as the urgency of authentic problem-solving procedures.

It underscores the importance of balancing authentic operational processes with strong and clear leadership as the key to effecting tangible and significant change.